Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
The quote below is from Peter Wallace's dissertation on the history of American presbyterianism. Is this understanding if the WCF right: "Both the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Westminster Confession insist that while human laws (whether of the church or the state) do not bind the conscience, they do bind practice?" From his dissertation:
The Reformers affirmed the right of private judgment (insisting that human laws could not bind the conscience), but also insisted that human laws could indeed bind practice. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, following a traditional medieval distinction, both affirmed and limited the rights of conscience:
Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. (Article 34)
The Westminster Confession of Faith expanded the role of conscience, but retained clear boundaries for conscience as well:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. (20.2)
And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church. and by the power of the civil magistrate. (20.4)
Both the Thirty-Nine Articles and the Westminster Confession insist that while human laws (whether of the church or the state) do not bind the conscience, they do bind practice.[9] In other words, they were trying to show people how to maintain a clear conscience within the context of a Reformed catholicity.
